posted at 1:10 pm on January 24, 2008 by Allahpundit

We’ve been remiss in not blogging this so let me put it on your radar screen now as the film’s due to drop in the next week or two. Michael van der Galien’s got all the links you need at PJM. No one knows yet precisely what the film will be — thoughtful Hirsi Ali-esque critique of the Koran as “a source of inspiration for intolerance, murder and terror” or protest porn of producer/MP Geert Wilders tearing out pages and wiping himself? — but the goal seems to be to elicit a patented Islamic overreaction. Mission soon to be accomplished:

Last year, Wilders sought to have the Koran banned in the Netherlands and compared it with Adolf Hilter’s “Mein Kampf.” He said that if Muslims wanted to stay in the country they should tear out half the Koran and throw it away…

Last week, Syria’s Grand Mufti Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun said that if the Freedom Party leader tears up or burns a Koran in his film, “this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed. And he will be responsible. It is the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop Wilders.”

And from Galien’s post, ye olde good cop/bad cop:

The Dutch Muslim Council has warned the government: if the movie is broadcasted anywhere, riots are certain. “We fear for the worst,” stated the council. “The youths on the streets will have the last word. We can’t stop them.”

The embassies are on worldwide alert and Dutch counterterror officials have told Wilders to make himself scarce ahead of the release as they apparently can’t guarantee his safety once the film’s out. What does our patron saint Ayaan, who wrote the script for the film that earned Theo Van Gogh a knife in the chest, think of Wilders’s stunt? She’s against it, surprisingly, dismissing it as a provocation. The interview’s in Dutch so I don’t know her exact reasoning but I’m guessing she distinguishes his film from hers by their respective intentions, hers having been to raise awareness of the subjugation of Muslim women and his being to drive the perpetually aggrieved into the freaky deakiest show of grievance yet. Which is to say, her film is commentary and his is “mere” incitement. Is it, though? Or is it actually a sort of experiment, with the film as hypothesis and the reaction the empirical “proof”? Here’s Wilders:

In an open letter in newspaper De Volkskrant yesterday, Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders criticised the commotion over his Koran film. With their panicky reactions, politicians and authorities are proving that Islam is an intolerant ideology, in his view.

Wilders uses half of his letter to sketch a contrast between Islam and Christianity. “Imagine that (…) it became known that I was going to make a film to demonstrate the Fascist character of the Bible. Say that I had urged in a letter a few months earlier that the Bible should be banned. (…) Would Premier Balkenende then (…) have spoken of a serious crisis with international effects? Would there (…) have been a special meeting of ministers? Would the chief editors (…) in public broadcasting have conferred about how to deal with the film?” (…) “Of course not.”…

“The fact that a not yet shown film of about 10 minutes could according to some lead to economic boycotts, riots and other horrible things says everything about the nature of Islam. Nothing about me. The cabinet acknowledges with its panicky reaction that Islam is not comparable to Christianity, but is a unique ideology. And this ideology thus demands a separate, unique approach. The Koran film has thus already demonstrated its usefulness.”

This gets us back into the endless debate over the “tiny minority” and whether it’s fair to blame all of Islam for the hysterical elements, but either way he is making a point here beyond simply getting his rocks off at the idea of pissing off Muslims. The Dutch foreign minister tried to shrug that off by telling an international conference recently, “[F]reedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend.” Except that it does, doesn’t it? As another man in a not altogether dissimilar situation said recently, “It’s my bloody right to do so.” I’m surprised Hirsi Ali’s taking the “nuanced” view on that in this case.

Update: Myrtus, the Dutch blogger linked above, offers this translation of Hirsi Ali’s comments. It’s not the film she opposes, it’s Wilders’s desire to ban the Koran. That makes more sense.

The Netherlands is on high alert in light of the upcoming movie by Wilders. What’s your view on this?

That movie passes for freedom of speech. It can and should be allowed. Police commissioner Welten fears that it’s provocative. Of course it is. Wilders has tackled an issue and wants to nailed it. I don’t believe in his answers. I’m not in favor of banning books, neither of the Koran or Mein Kampf.

Verdonk and Wilders don’t have the proper solutions for The Netherlands. It has to come from the bigger parties and that’s where there is a lack of leadership. Do you remember the Centrum Party? It remained marginal. Then came Bolkenstein, he took charge of the immigration and Islam problem. But now there is no Bolkenstein, nowhere in parliament. If a new Bolkenstein comes along, Wilders’ followers will once again return to the big parties.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The Dutch Muslim Council has warned the government: if the movie is broadcasted anywhere, riots are certain. “We fear for the worst,” stated the council. “The youths on the streets will have the last word. We can’t stop them.”

I’m surprised Hirsi Ali’s taking the “nuanced” view on that in this case.

I am a little as well, but then remember the media’s sympathy for the fake Koran in the toilet story awhile ago. She might be concerned that the media will portray any violence as fully justified, given the ‘insulting’ nature of the film.

Riots will be cheaper by the dozen after this, and the media will cover in such a way to illicit responses of “well, the Muslims were provoked and deeply insulted; I don’t blame them for (fill in the blank)” from the general public.

I do realize that this film is primarily an attempt to provoke, which is a questionable motive in itself, but the Muslim response will yet again be so very wrong and evil, but unfortunately likely excused by the left.

Islam is not just the faith of another immigrant group. No, political Islam is here to “Islamicize” us. Our culture must submit to the culture of Islam. That has been Islam’s mandate towards every other culture for 1,400 years, and here and now it’s no different. Islam is devoted to an unchanging doctrine, to follow Mohammed’s plan until all the earth is Islamic. This goal is repeated again and again in the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith.

In short, all Muslims agree with the goal; they just differ on which method of their dualistic ethics—peaceful tactics or violent ones—is the most efficient way to reach the goal of dominance.

The political nature of Islam is to control 100% of the public sphere: the news media, books, poetry, music, art, the law, constitutions, dress, food, the courts. If something is in the public domain, then Islam must control it. That means this book or anything else that stakes out the fundamental rights of the Free is forbidden by Islam.

Political Islam has another feature: it never acknowledges and never apologizes. In the last 1,400 years jihad has killed more than 270 million of the Free, yet political Islam denies having killed a single soul. Islam denies its role in slavery, even though every black slave sold to a white man was wholesaled by a Muslim. Islam has even carried on the slave trade in the 20th and 21st centuries and has never made a single acknowledgment or apology; there is no guilt. Muslims feel shame if they fail but never guilt about their successes in war and slavery. After all, their ethical doctrine supports all of their positions.
more at source

if the movie is broadcasted anywhere, riots are certain. “We fear for the worst,” stated the council. “The youths on the streets will have the last word. We can’t stop them.”

Religion of peace, my @ss. From the Sermon on the Mount…

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”

Auto makers in France gear up for increased demand. Rage Boy packs his suitcase. Great Britain bans the Three Little Pigs,…no, wait. Inman prays for victory over nonbelievers and the Great Satan in Iowa legislature,..oops.
No, I really think we’re in pretty good shape, the Muslims shouldn’t have anything to be angry about.

The Dutch Muslim Council has warned the government: if the movie is broadcasted anywhere, riots are certain. “We fear for the worst,” stated the council. “The youths on the streets will have the last word. We can’t stop them.”

STOP them? The Dutch Muslim Council would very likely be goading them on. If the Dutch government had any balls (they don’t, unfortunately…Holland is the colostomy bag of Europe) they would simply shoot the rioters on sight and then bill their families for the ammunition and cost of removing the corpses.

It’s important to keep in mind that in the MSM / Liberal view overreacting to slights real and perceived shows that you’re being in touch with your feelings, which is a good thing. Whereas conservatives roll their eyes, mutter something about a bunch of whiny little bitches, and go back to working on whatever they were working on.

I must be channeling P.J. O’Rourke this morning because I’m reminded of a story he related where he was watching some liberal protest or other with another conservative journalist and he wondered why it is that when liberals are offended there are huge crowds and signs and nifty rhyming slogans and when somebody offends conservatives there are two Young Americans for Freedom standing there waving a small flag. His companion shrugged and replied “we have jobs.”

I remember seeing a Muslim being interviewed by Morley Safer on 60 Minutes, as he asked, “What is this freedom, the freedom to be insulted?” Safer said, much to my admiration, “Well, yes, it is.” No response from the Muslim.

The Dutch Muslim Council has warned the government: if the movie is broadcasted anywhere, riots are certain. “We fear for the worst,” stated the council. “The youths on the streets will have the last word. We can’t stop them.”

You want to know who you are? Huh? Huh? You Muslims don’t, I do, everyone does… you’re all the sons of a thousand fathers, all bastardos like you.

Well, there goes my plan to put a shrine to Hirsi Ali in my den. What some call provocation, I simply call educating the public about our enemies, by inducing them to educate the public about themselves.

I guess that what has happened to Hirsi Ali is that she is trying to be viewed a voice as reason and compromise. It’s a natural temptation, but unwise if your opponent is rabid.

If the muslims are determined to have war with us and everyone else, we should provoke, provoke, provoke while the muslims still have relatively few nukes. We are just going to have to admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren’t going to be the only ones–and most emphatically is not our fault because we listen to what the muslims say and see how they act. Nor is Islam going to fall of its own weight like Communism did. The Reagan strategy isn’t possible.

I can’t help but be reminded of the politics of polarization, the Alinski style ju-jitsu being practiced on Obama by the Clinton tag-team that has been the topic du jour since the Nevada Caucauses. As delineated today by Kyle Anne Shiver at The American Thinker

I’ve been saying for the better part of a year on counter-jihad blogs that the only way to wake the narcoleptic Europeans to the growing danger in their midst is to provoke the perpetually outraged into paroxysms of anger. The Muslims are long term thinkers; they KNOW current demographic and immigration trends are in their favor and they KNOW that if unchanged the goal of an Islamic Europe will eventually happen. Incidents that cause them to riot plays right into the hands of people like Wilders who want to expose the Muslim agenda before it’s too late. Imagine a nuclear armed, Islamic Europe.

I think this film is indeed an experiment, and it’s sheer genius. This Wilders guy’s like, “Religion of Peace, huh? Ok, let’s put that to the test.” It’s brilliant.

The mere fact that the “Dutch Muslim Council” or whatever the crap they call it is threatening riots(!!!) over a freaking 10 minute film should be proof enough for anyone that this religion is seriously screwed up, and has been from the very beginning. When was the last time a leader of any other major religion made thinly veiled threats like this?

Time to break out the shotguns, boys. This lunacy is coming here next.

Yeah, well, it might be a tiny minority that acts up. But the huge majority is silent. Maybe the majority is disgusted by the radicals, maybe not – it is hard for us to tell. The majority then has to decide whether allah would rather they
a) rat out a radical “brother” and side with the infidels
or
b) stay quiet and appear to at least tacitly endorse radical behavior.

Until the religion, as a whole, has an ‘Anbar Awakening’ they will choose “A” every time. Since the Muslim community won’t point out the troublemakers, might as well bait the bad guys with a movie to help identify the radicals.
Once the radicals are identified, tell the Dutch people the radicals are fans of British soccer teams. That oughta bring some kind of resolution to the issue.

I checked over at Gates of Vienna blog to see if they had a translation, but they do not. They sometimes translate articles of interest like that, and they follow Ayaan Hirsi Ali pretty closely. They do have an article about the kind of threats Geert Wilder has already recieved. Evidently there’s a video of a mock beheading with his name of it, all set to rap music. I don’t know how to link, so you’ll have to use Google.

By golly, the Dutch Muslim population really seems to be quite dangerous! Maybe our neighbors to the west could buy them one-way plane tickets to their countries of origin, just to be sure they won’t offend them ever again?

Yep. Wilders’ film is going to draw a stark line and push people to either side of it. Either you support Western freedoms or you’re a proto-dhimmi. Either you stand with the lone individual exercising his rights or you stand with the enraged mob. Either you support law and order or you support sharia in the West. Either you defend ancient Western traditions or you welcome your Mohammedan overlords.

Wilders is a provocateur. But that’s what the West needs right now, especially in Europe. Enough PC fantasies. Enough incrimentalism. Show the public what’s at stake in stark and clear terms.

Westerners have had the right and freedom to insult Islam since Islam first invaded the West, 1200 years ago. Our ancestors took this right for granted, even celebrated it in verse, art and ceremony. We can reassert this or embrace the long cold darkness of dhimmitude.

My one hope would be a last-one-out-turns-off-the-light scenario; When senior gov’t and military in France/Britain realize things have gone too far, and they are about to be replaced by a caliphate, they announce unilateral disarmament, and completely disassemble their nuclear amrories, a la South Africa on the eve of post-apartheid majority gov’t in the early 90s.

The majority then has to decide whether allah would rather they
a) rat out a radical “brother” and side with the infidels
or
b) stay quiet and appear to at least tacitly endorse radical behavior.

innominatus on January 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Religious Muslims, even if they have no urge to wage jihad with infidels, will never seek to injure Islam, because if they do, they are cast out as hypocrites (at best) or apostates (more likely). That is why they will always stay quiet and never speak out against the behavior of “radicals”.

Agreed. And if the Dutch Muslims (and the other Muslims who’ve immigrated to other parts of Europe, Canada, Australia, or the U.S.) don’t like it, they can go the hell back to their own countries. Accommodation does NOT mean capitulation.

Meaning moderate Muslims will not speak out against the extremists for fear of being seen as apostates at least in the eyes of radicals who are hijacking their religion.
Which to me doesn’t make any sense because if moderates truly looked at radicals as highjacking their religion as an outcast sect of Islam, they should speak out against it.
Of course, Islam makes no sense to me as far as the believers blind faith and submission.
I look at Islam more as an infection until I can differentiate between moderates and radicals.

I hope this guy runs the film 24/7 on it’s own TV network and on the internet as well. Failing to do so, or demanding that he NOT do it will only confirm what we’ve been suspecting for years: Islam now rules Europe.

Does anyone out there even doubt that this would have been a COMPLETE non-story had the roles been reversed. Yeah, I thought so.

This dude is my hero. He has more nerve in his pinky than GWB has in his whole administration.

Has Ayaan Hirsi Ali seen the film? Because I was surprised by her assessment. I hope it wasn’t premature. The jury’s still out on whether this film will get people thinking and researching, just like Submission and Theo Van Gogh’s death did. I really hope Wilders doesn’t do anything stupid like tear the Qu’ran. But he’s a politician, so I don’t expect this film to be much. The film Robert Spencer was in is more informative about Islam.

“This gets us back into the endless debate over the “tiny minority” and whether it’s fair to blame all of Islam for the hysterical elements.”

Innonomatus is right about the silent majority. Beyond this, we learned on 9/11 and they learned with Van Gogh, that it only takes a tiny minority to intimidate the country. Would you make a cartoon or film against Islam now? Many wouldn’t.

The West has an absolute right, as do China and Saudi Arabia and every other country, to stop immigration. We have a duty to protect our Western values such as separation of church and state as well as free speech. We have a right and duty to ask, what is the benefit of letting in 700 more muslims, and what is the risk? If 2 of 700 turn out to be terrorists, it is not worth the risk. We have a right to refuse all. That is not racist, it is culturist. Western nations cultural and political soveriegnty supercedes any U.N.style version of “human rights.” We needn’t be the only nations without sovereignty.

Besides, “the youth will riot” over a movie does not sound like a tiny minority. Not tiny enough.

Maybe it’s gonna take a Muslim mob on the streets of Amsterdam, burning and killing, to educate the Dutch public about the murderous intolerance of Islam, just like it took a church bombing and three dead girls in Birmingham to convince America the Klan was evil.

In the letter, the organization contended that it’s better to “censor the movie in a democracy like the Netherlands, where the freedom of religion is a constitutional right” because the only aim of the film is to make Islam and the Koran look as bad as possible.

I guess they didn’t get the memo, no one needs a bloody film to make Islam and the koran look bad.

I agree with Hirsi Ali that neither the film or the Koran should be banned, however I do think it’s fair to ban Korans in Gitmo because under those circumstances it is like giving German prisoners of war copies of Mein Kampf.

The Dutch foreign minister tried to shrug that off by telling an international conference recently, “[F]reedom of expression doesn’t mean the right to offend.”

Why does it never occur to these Stalinists that freely expressed statements like that are immeasurably offensive?